Much slower travel couldn’t contain influenza even in 1889

Tackling the flu virus in airports might be a futile gesture, based on data …

Influenza viruses can spread quickly, and many of the public health measures that have been taken in recent years have focused on limiting the viruses' transmission through quarantine-style methods. But new data shows the approach may not be very effective. When studying the 1889 "Russian" influenza pandemic, scientists found that the virus was able to spread rapidly across the ocean despite the limited travel of that era.

The way the word "pandemic" seems to be thrown around, you wouldn't know it's fairly rare for an illness to achieve that designation. Since the early 18th century, there have only been 11 viruses that qualify for "pandemic" status, including the most recent spread of the OSIV/H1N1 virus. Only a handful of these pandemics haven been studied, including the 1957, 1968, and 1918 flus. Scientists knew the so-called Russian pandemic of 1889 could be important, but were only recently able to get good data on it, through sources like those that tracked the spread of influenza among various European armies.

There were surprising similarities between the 1889 pandemic data and that of the heavily studied 1918 pandemic. In 1889, the virus spread from Russia through Europe and over to North America over the course of only four months, and had an infection rate similar to the 1918 pandemic, with about two new hosts per sick person. However, the mortality rate from the flu in 1889 was only a tenth of that in 1918.

Scientists also realized that, despite much slower travel in the 19th century, the flu was able to spread almost as quickly as it can today, suggesting that there is a trade-off related to how quickly people move around. Someone carrying the virus can infect fewer people in many places, or many people in fewer places; either way, the virus spreads at more or less the same rate.

This supports mathematical models that show that restricting air travel and similar tactics do little to stop flu spread; if the 19th century flu could do without aircraft, so could the 21st century version. To contain influenza, researchers suggest that we would do better to tailor our methods to the population profile of individual cities, rather than trying to lock them down.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

Ummmm, in 1889 people didn't fly places to travel, so OF COURSE it spread without planes.

How often are the travel methods used in 1889 used today? Sure, Europe would be spread via train, but there's not really a whole lot of traveling being done between Europe and North America NOT by plane now is there?

Ummmm, in 1889 people didn't fly places to travel, so OF COURSE it spread without planes.

How often are the travel methods used in 1889 used today? Sure, Europe would be spread via train, but there's not really a whole lot of traveling being done between Europe and North America NOT by plane now is there?

It's not a question of 'how it spread.' It's a question of 'how fast.' The researchers are saying that in 1889, the flu spread just as fast as it would today, so claiming planes spread pandemics faster is inaccurate.

Remember, there were policies in place at airports to stop people from travelling if they had the flu. Body heat scanners were even put in place to stop those with fevers, and much noise was made over people using medications to lower fevers to fool these scanners.

This is basically saying, "it'll spread regardless. Focus on other ways to control it rather than draconian travel restrictions."

I think Volante is right that the article focues on rates of infection, but he/she perhaps has not focused on the most important point about influenza (and maybe Casey Johnston has too).

While it may have spread relatively quickly in 1889, it's a bit odd that this fact makes it into the headline while a statement like "the mortality rate from the flu in 1889 was only a tenth of that in 1918" looks like a side-note.

Is the latter fact simply not considered important? Speculating, might it perhaps be because it wouldn't arouse alarm in anyone skimming the headlines? Or do people genuinely think that the mere chance of catching the flu actually outweighs the possible consequences once you have contracted it?

I think that if the flu spreads just as fast, but causes 90% fewer deaths, then thats a massively positive thing. Am I alone on this?

Wait, wait, wait. I've never heard anyone suggest that the *speed* of travel was a factor, only the *volume*. And speaking of travel volume, 1889 was the year of the Oklahoma Land Rush in the US, bringing literal millions of people from Russia and Europe to America, packing ships into infection hotbeds, drawing especially heavily on the poor and ill-medicated, and upon arrival packing many into new-founded "cities" indistinguishable from modern tent-slums.

Wait, wait, wait. I've never heard anyone suggest that the *speed* of travel was a factor, only the *volume*. And speaking of travel volume, 1889 was the year of the Oklahoma Land Rush in the US, bringing literal millions of people from Russia and Europe to America, packing ships into infection hotbeds, drawing especially heavily on the poor and ill-medicated, and upon arrival packing many into new-founded "cities" indistinguishable from modern tent-slums.

Let's use NYC. You could have the flu, jump on the subway in midtown with someone going to Newark, infect them, get blocked at JFK but now Newark and JFK are spread points when only the person at JFK is noted and stopped. The other person has the virus but no symptoms. Plus, If the person at JFK gets stopped with the flu at the entrance they just got stopped where everyone else entering comes through.

Yeah, I would agree that it makes sense that speed isn't relevant, if a steady stream of travel is already established. If it can be shown that lots more people were immigrating back in 1889 than today, then the speed of travel isn't necessarily as important. Furthermore, long boat journeys would give more time for fellow commuters to contract a disease from any infected passenger, meaning the percentage of carriers on arrival would probably be higher.

It seems that it's simply a case of comparing the end results of a fast-but-diluted stream to a slow-but-concentrated stream.

How often are the travel methods used in 1889 used today? Sure, Europe would be spread via train, but there's not really a whole lot of traveling being done between Europe and North America NOT by plane now is there?

Pretty often, since boats still exist. You're only thinking of pleasure travel and white collar business trips. There's a whole ocean-based shipping industry you're ignoring. Furthermore, there are probably more people involved in ocean-based commerce today than there were in commerce and tourism combined during the 19th century, partly because travel was much more expensive back then, and partly because there were fewer people.

In addition to the shipping industry (and its human crews) there are a couple ocean liners out there, still. Cunard just started their 2010 transatlantic season!

Someone carrying the virus can infect fewer people in many places, or many people in fewer places; either way, the virus spreads at more or less the same rate.

That's a very problematic statement, given that an infection profile of 'many people in fewer places' leads to a situation in which a rising proportion of exposures are to those who have already encountered the virus. The balance between the two scenarios depends on many factors such as the infectivity, incubation period, and transmissibility. For a highly-infective virus, though, fewer people in many places is always a worse option.

This is basically saying, "it'll spread regardless. Focus on other ways to control it rather than draconian travel restrictions."

The Bakerlab at Washington Uni have a promising potential inhibitor for influenza but they need more computer power through Rosetta@Home (a BOINC project).

David Baker wrote:

While the results are still preliminary, it appears that Rosetta@home has produced an extremely exciting result! As I described a few posts ago, many of you through rosetta@home contributed to the design of proteins predicted to bind very tightly to the influenza flu virus. We have now completed the first round of testing of the designed proteins, and one of them in the experiments conducted thus far clearly binds very tightly to the virus. Our data also indicate that the binding is at a site critical to the virus invasion of our cells, and so the protein may be able to neutralize the virus. I will keep you posted over the next couple of months as the picture becomes clearer--but for now--thank you all for making this possible!!

And:

Experiments this past week have made us even more confident that the designed influenza binder is working as in the design model.

I believe it was 1947 (no, I wasn't around back then) when a group of scientists ran some experiments trying to curtail the spread of the flu. Their most successful experiment was to expose a group of mice to a mixture of propylene glycol vapor and a flu virus. After a period of time none of the mice got the flu. They took away the PG and within a week all the mice were dead. It seems that PG kills flu virus on contact, and is harmless to humans (and mice). They then made the (preposterous) proposal that the US government fumigate stadiums, theaters, shopping centers, etc. with PG. Of course that didn't go over too well. Anyway, I'm inhaling PG vapor every day. Quite a bit of it I believe. Not to immunize myself from the flu, that's just a side benefit. It's the main ingredient (the carrier) of those new electronic cigarettes that have exploded on the market recently. I would highly recommend switching to the e-cig if you smoke. I haven't had a tobacco cigarette since Dec 10th, and get way more satisfaction from the e-cig than I ever did from tobacco.

This is basically saying, "it'll spread regardless. Focus on other ways to control it rather than draconian travel restrictions."

The Bakerlab at Washington Uni have a promising potential inhibitor for influenza but they need more computer power through Rosetta@Home (a BOINC project).

David Baker wrote:

While the results are still preliminary, it appears that Rosetta@home has produced an extremely exciting result! As I described a few posts ago, many of you through rosetta@home contributed to the design of proteins predicted to bind very tightly to the influenza flu virus. We have now completed the first round of testing of the designed proteins, and one of them in the experiments conducted thus far clearly binds very tightly to the virus. Our data also indicate that the binding is at a site critical to the virus invasion of our cells, and so the protein may be able to neutralize the virus. I will keep you posted over the next couple of months as the picture becomes clearer--but for now--thank you all for making this possible!!

And:

Experiments this past week have made us even more confident that the designed influenza binder is working as in the design model.

This article would make you think not, and the abstracts I can find on the 'net make no mention. Might actually not be relevant (land rush was in April, flu peak was in the fall/winter), but my faith in academic humanity hopes there was at least some thought given in the actual research.

I think that if the flu spreads just as fast, but causes 90% fewer deaths, then thats a massively positive thing. Am I alone on this?

No, you're not alone at all. But flu (and other disease) mortality rates and spreading rates are, I believe, well established as independent properties. I've even seen reports of diseases that have evolutionarily "chosen" to give up some virulence (death rate, intensity of other symptoms) in order to gain some spreading rate!

There's no reason to suppose that the transportation differences between 1889 and today would affect the death rate, but there are good theoretical reasons to suspect that they would affect the spreading rate. This research is interesting precisely because, and solely to the extent that, it suggests those theoretical reasons may not hold.

I think Volante is right that the article focues on rates of infection, but he/she perhaps has not focused on the most important point about influenza (and maybe Casey Johnston has too).

While it may have spread relatively quickly in 1889, it's a bit odd that this fact makes it into the headline while a statement like "the mortality rate from the flu in 1889 was only a tenth of that in 1918" looks like a side-note.

Is the latter fact simply not considered important? Speculating, might it perhaps be because it wouldn't arouse alarm in anyone skimming the headlines? Or do people genuinely think that the mere chance of catching the flu actually outweighs the possible consequences once you have contracted it?

I think that if the flu spreads just as fast, but causes 90% fewer deaths, then thats a massively positive thing. Am I alone on this?

While the infection speeds were the same and the mortality rates were different, that says nothing about the total amount of people affected or the length of proliferation. The 1918 pandemic infected 500 million and killed 50 million. The 1889 pandemic only infected 50 million people, and killed 5 million or so. So while there were fewer deaths, there were also far fewer opportunities for death.

This is basically saying, "it'll spread regardless. Focus on other ways to control it rather than draconian travel restrictions."

The Bakerlab at Washington Uni have a promising potential inhibitor for influenza but they need more computer power through Rosetta@Home (a BOINC project).

David Baker wrote:

While the results are still preliminary, it appears that Rosetta@home has produced an extremely exciting result! As I described a few posts ago, many of you through rosetta@home contributed to the design of proteins predicted to bind very tightly to the influenza flu virus. We have now completed the first round of testing of the designed proteins, and one of them in the experiments conducted thus far clearly binds very tightly to the virus. Our data also indicate that the binding is at a site critical to the virus invasion of our cells, and so the protein may be able to neutralize the virus. I will keep you posted over the next couple of months as the picture becomes clearer--but for now--thank you all for making this possible!!

And:

Experiments this past week have made us even more confident that the designed influenza binder is working as in the design model.

I think that is less of an issue than the stupidity of the way governments treat potentially dangerous carriers.

Australia had a boat come in filled with swine flu carriers (while the pandemic warning was in effect and everyone was losing their minds). The government quarantined the family that was verified to have swine flu.

All well and good right??.... there is more.

Neither of the governments wanted to pay for a special flight to return them home (they recognized that you couldn't put them on a plane with other passengers) so they had to stay locally.

So, without putting masks on them, they WALKED them down through the middle of Sydney CBD and put them up in an air-conditioned hotel.

Sounds like a nice touch till you consider that AC is a closed system that cycles air throughout the entire hotel. So thats a lot of people getting exposed to an airborne agent that (at that stage) was considered potentially lethal. Add that to the lovely place where the air was expelled and new air was drawn in... and its a lovely warm environment perfect for breeding bacteria and viral agents.